APHC010471322007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Tenth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1715 and 1709 of M.A.C.M.A.No.1715 of 2007 Between: Motupalli Pullaiah, S/o Thirupathaiah, Hindu, aged 43 years, working at Railway Gangaman, R/o Regadichelika, Kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore District. And 1.Chalavadi Mallikarjuna Rao, son of Late Jamalayya, Hindu, Lorry Tank Owner, R/o 54-18/3 Vijayawada. 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Brundavanam, Nellore. Counsel for the appellant: 1. M.Suguna Counsel for the respondents: 1. S.A.V.Ratnam IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Tenth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1715 and 1709 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1715 of 2007 Motupalli Pullaiah, S/o Thirupathaiah, Hindu, aged 43 years, working at Railway Gangaman, R/o Regadichelika, Kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore ...Appellant/Petitioner a Rao, son of Late Jamalayya, Hindu, Lorry 18/3-2, Sivapuram colony, Bharathgas Lane, 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Brundavanam, Nellore. Counsel for the appellant: Counsel for the respondents: [3311] Thursday, the Tenth Day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Motupalli Pullaiah, S/o Thirupathaiah, Hindu, aged 43 years, working at Railway Gangaman, R/o Regadichelika, Kodavaluru Mandal, Nellore Appellant/Petitioner a Rao, son of Late Jamalayya, Hindu, Lorry 2, Sivapuram colony, Bharathgas Lane, 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch 2 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 M.A.C.M.A.No.1709 of 2007 Between: Yanamala Raghuramaiah, S/o Polaiah, Hindu, aged 19 years, coolie, R/o Vangallu Marripadu village, Sangam Mandal, Nellore District. ...Appellant/Petitioner And 1.Chalavadi Mallikarjuna Rao, son of Late Jamalayya, Hindu, Lorry Tank Owner, R/o 54-18/3-2, Sivapuram colony, Bharathgas Lane, Vijayawada. 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Brundavanam, Nellore. Counsel for the appellant: 1. M.Suguna Counsel for the respondents: 1. V.Sambasiva Rao 2. Vijaya Kumar Potturi 3 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A No.1715 of 2007 is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the claimant against the award and decree dated 19.07.2005 in O.P.No.534 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Court, Nellore awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs payable by the 1st respondent only. 02. 02. M.A.C.M.A No.1709 of 2007 is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the claimant against the award and decree dated 19.07.2005 in O.P.No.533 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Court, Nellore awarding compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs payable by the 1st respondent only. 03. Since both claims arise out of same accident the Tribunal passed common order against which both the above appeals were filed. 04. The common case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows: The claimants suffered injuries while travelling in a lorry (tanker) bearing No.TN-09-C-9811 on 19-07-2002 when the driver of the lorry from Nellore to Rajupalem drove it in a rash and negligent manner. The claim was raised by the insurance company mainly on the ground that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation as the claimants were fare paying passengers in a goods vehicle i.e., lorry, After considering the objection, the Tribunal granted the compensation as aforesaid 4 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 payable by 1st respondent and the claim against the 2nd respondent was dismissed. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as liability against the insurer being dismissed, these appeals were preferred. 05. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that apart from granting a low amount of compensation, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim against the insurer, instead of atleast allowing the claimants to receive the amounts from the insurer who can recover the same from insured after payment to the claimants. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision of the National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Baljit Kaur and others1. 06. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent / insurance company, while disputing the liability, conceded for the legal proposition in the case cited for the learned counsel for the appellants. 07. In the relevant paragraph in Baljit Kaur case is para No.21. “21.The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is t hat instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, 1 2004 CJ (SC) 881 5 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved. If the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject- matter o determination before the Tribunal and issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident in as much as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.” 08. In the present case as the claimant were travelling in a goods vehicle, there was violation of terms of policy and the policy does not cover a fare paying passenger. Further, in the light of the above cited case, the insurance company can be directed to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from the insured by filing an execution petition without the obligation of filing any separate petition or suit. 09. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and fixed the amount of compensation payable, there is no need to interfere with the award in that regard. 6 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 The claimant in O.P.No.533 of 2003 sought compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.7,000/- towards medical expenses, transport charges and extra nourishment, Rs.20,000/- for injury No.1 and Rs.2,000/- is awarded for each simple injury. As he sustained 4 simple injuries he is entitled for Rs.8,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and in total a sum of Rs.43,000/- is awarded as compensation. In O.P.No.534 of 2003, the claimant sought compensation of Rs.60,000/- for which the Tribunal awarded Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.6,000/- for medical expenses, extra nourishment and transport charges, Rs.15,000/- for compensation for injury No.1 and Rs.2,000/- is awarded for simple injury No.2, Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and in all he is entitled for total compensation of Rs.40,000/- 10. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed setting aside the impugned the award and decree dated 19.07.2005 in O.Ps.Nos.533 and 534 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III- Additional District Court, Nellore to the extent of dismissing the claim against the respondent No.2 and directing the respondent No.2 to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the respondent No.1 after making such payment by filing execution petition, if necessary, without filing a separate suit. The rest of the award and decree granting compensation, interest and costs is intact. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both these appeals shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 10.07.2025 GRL 7 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 8 BSB,J MACMA.No.1715, 1709 of 2007 175 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A NOs: 1715 and 1709 of 2007 Date: 10.07.2025 GRL